Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

Science blogs

EVENTS

Fischer Demands Discrimination

Bryan Fischer delivered a brief sermon in favor of discrimination, especially against gay people. While praising the Ohio Catholic school that fired a gay teacher, he said discrimination is right and good.

The ironic thing is that Brian Fisher is basically right with his premise: “discrimination” is not automatically wrong and sometime is it only proper and just that we discriminate. We skeptics make this argument all the time when we explain why it’s “fair” for science instructors and classes to throw or keep out pseudoscientists and pseudoscience. We make a just discrimination between good and bad ideas. We make a just discrimination between good and bad morals. We make a distinction.

But of course like all apologists Fisher equivocates and pulls a bait ‘n switch — using a reasonable point to sneak in an unreasonable one. Being gay is not harmful. It is not aberrant behavior similar to theft. It is NOT moral turpitude. That’s the jist of the problem. The argument isn’t over whether it’s ever okay to make a reasonable discrimination between alternatives. When we call homophobia “discrimination” we mean it’s UNFAIR discrimination. Homosexuality is morally neutral and the teacher’s sexual orientation was irrelevant. We don’t mean that there’s no such thing as right or wrong because we should make no judgements.

But Fischer plays it that way to make it seem as if the protests are coming from amoral people with no discernment and a pop postmodern perspective that all things are equal. Get them nodding over one point and slide imperceptibly into another. Dishonest.

[Pet Peeve Alert] The word discrimination is a neutral word meaning to divide a group based upon a characteristic. Everyone discriminates every day based on relevant characteristics. For example, employers hire folks only with the appropriate education–those without are discriminated against. It is when discrimination is based on an irrelevant consideration–race, religion, national origin for example–can it bad. And race sometimes is an appropriate consideration. For example, no one would argue that discriminating against a white women for the lead role in a biographical movie about Muhammed Ali is wrong. [Alert off].

I’m a little confused about the point Fischer is making. Is he saying that employment-based discrimination due to homosexuality is okay on a “job-specific” basis (i.e., a gay teacher being fired from a Catholic school), or is he saying that this rationale for job termination should be acceptable in ANY form of employment? If it’s the former, then that’s (moderately) defensible. If it’s the latter, then he’s basically saying that all homosexuals should be unemployed…which is, of course, not defensible.

My take on it was he’s arguing the latter while using the former as a straw man and convenient fall-back position. I know we tend to look at these guys as stupid yokels but that is the sort of strategy a lot of them seem to use and for good reason. It’s a more sound strategy than taking either position directly and running with it in that it lets them loop in the most nutters while giving them a more reasonable sounding position to fall back to if too many normal people get the message by mistake.

I can’t speak for anyone else, Lanir; I think it’s a safe bet that whether most of Ed’s regulars think that Fischer is a lying fuckbag or dumber than a box of dunce caps is not of any consequence. He’s as wrong as anyone can be and how he got to this position is not something I need to know before pointing and laughing.

Weirdly enough, words can have more than one definition, and those definitions change over time! Astounding, right?

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Definition of DISCRIMINATION
1
a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2
: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3
a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Don’t pretend that discrimination between two things and discrimination against a group of people are not separate — and well attested to — definitions and usages. It’s intellectually dishonest.